States are preparing to save babies by forcing Roe Vs Wade before the SC

[P@triot]

Don't like logic or reality? Too bad. That's what happens, whether you like it or not.

Except that it’s not. Stop being such an emotional, hyperbolic snowflake. Geez.

 

[John Shaw]

It's simple logic. No abortion = more children. More poor children. No welfare = more poor, hungry children and more poverty. More poverty --> more crime.

It doesn't matter who's in charge. In your hypothetical, that's what happens. No abortion. No welfare. More crime and more poverty.

There is absolutely no “logic” in the left. Because the left is built exclusively on irrational feelings.

More children does not equal more crime. Otherwise the Baby Boomer generation would have destroyed society. In fact, the pure statistics of if dictates the polar opposite. There are around 700,000 abortions per year. Some of those would have been the next Steve Jobs (who was put up for adoption). Steve created millions of high paying jobs during his lifetime. Some of those would have cured diseases such as cancer.

Those abortions are cheating the world of innovators, job creators, medical breakthroughs, etc.

You said no abortion AND no welfare. Did you not?

 

[P@triot]

He said welfare is unconstitutional.

It is unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution explicitly limits the federal government to 18 enumerated powers and providing money, food, housing, healthcare isn’t one of them.

 

[P@triot]

You said no abortion AND no welfare. Did you not?

Correct.

 

[John Shaw]

He said welfare is unconstitutional.

It is unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution explicitly limits the federal government to 18 enumerated powers and proving money, food, housing, healthcare isn’t one of them.

Is it forbidden by the constitution?

 

[P@triot]

He said welfare is unconstitutional.

It is unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution explicitly limits the federal government to 18 enumerated powers and proving money, food, housing, healthcare isn’t one of them.

Is it forbidden by the constitution?

Yes. Explicitly. The U.S. Constitution makes it abundantly clear that anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers is not a power of the federal government. It is (and I quote) “reserved for the states and the people”.

You could have welfare at the state level of the people of a given state so decided. But every last social program at the federal level is egregiously unconstitutional.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

He said welfare is unconstitutional.

It is unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution explicitly limits the federal government to 18 enumerated powers and proving money, food, housing, healthcare isn’t one of them.

Is it forbidden by the constitution?

No, it's not. But if the founders wanted the federal government to be involved in all our needs, they wouldn't' have created the list of what the federal government should be responsible for.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We do not have to choose between murder or the elimination of “social costs”. The constitution clearly dictates that both are unconstitutional anyway. We can eliminate abortion and socialism.

And ... what? Increase poverty and crime?

Only if the Dumbocrats are in charge...

It's simple logic. No abortion = more children. More poor children. No welfare = more poor, hungry children and more poverty. More poverty --> more crime.

It doesn't matter who's in charge. In your hypothetical, that's what happens. No abortion. No welfare. More crime and more poverty.

I would challenge part of that. When we had Welfare Reform, the results were mostly positive. Some people were forced to go to work for the first time in their lives. More families stayed together. People claimed they felt liberated for the first time in their lives. It was a positive thing.

When you reward people to stay home and do nothing, don't be surprised when they do exactly that.

He said welfare is unconstitutional. He isn't talking about reform.

Perhaps, but your claim is that without welfare, the world would end as we know it: people starving, getting involved in more crime, murders in the street.......

None of that happened when Welfare Reform took place.

 

[John Shaw]

And ... what? Increase poverty and crime?

Only if the Dumbocrats are in charge...

It's simple logic. No abortion = more children. More poor children. No welfare = more poor, hungry children and more poverty. More poverty --> more crime.

It doesn't matter who's in charge. In your hypothetical, that's what happens. No abortion. No welfare. More crime and more poverty.

I would challenge part of that. When we had Welfare Reform, the results were mostly positive. Some people were forced to go to work for the first time in their lives. More families stayed together. People claimed they felt liberated for the first time in their lives. It was a positive thing.

When you reward people to stay home and do nothing, don't be surprised when they do exactly that.

He said welfare is unconstitutional. He isn't talking about reform.

Perhaps, but your claim is that without welfare, the world would end as we know it: people starving, getting involved in more crime, murders in the street.......

None of that happened when Welfare Reform took place.

I didn't say it would be a catastrophe, but I think it's hard to argue against the idea that both crime and poverty would increase in that scenario.

I haven't heard the "welfare is unconstitutional" argument made before. Usually people are more concerned with what they perceive to be unfair; freeloaders and such. I find it interesting.

 

[P@triot]

I haven't heard the "welfare is unconstitutional" argument made before. Usually people are more concerned with what they perceive to be unfair; freeloaders and such. I find it interesting.

It is completely unconstitutional at the federal level. It could be done at the state or local level if the people so choose.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Only if the Dumbocrats are in charge...

It's simple logic. No abortion = more children. More poor children. No welfare = more poor, hungry children and more poverty. More poverty --> more crime.

It doesn't matter who's in charge. In your hypothetical, that's what happens. No abortion. No welfare. More crime and more poverty.

I would challenge part of that. When we had Welfare Reform, the results were mostly positive. Some people were forced to go to work for the first time in their lives. More families stayed together. People claimed they felt liberated for the first time in their lives. It was a positive thing.

When you reward people to stay home and do nothing, don't be surprised when they do exactly that.

He said welfare is unconstitutional. He isn't talking about reform.

Perhaps, but your claim is that without welfare, the world would end as we know it: people starving, getting involved in more crime, murders in the street.......

None of that happened when Welfare Reform took place.

I didn't say it would be a catastrophe, but I think it's hard to argue against the idea that both crime and poverty would increase in that scenario.

I haven't heard the "welfare is unconstitutional" argument made before. Usually people are more concerned with what they perceive to be unfair; freeloaders and such. I find it interesting.

When Welfare Reform took place in the 90s, it didn't do any of those things you are predicting. In fact, after it was passed, violent and gun crime decreased significantly. Which horse will run faster, the one you feed carrots to before you take the horse out, or the one with a carrot dangling in front of them?

Our greatest success of this country is that people are rewarded for their efforts. When you reward people who don't give a damn about succeeding, less people will try.

 

[John Shaw]

I haven't heard the "welfare is unconstitutional" argument made before. Usually people are more concerned with what they perceive to be unfair; freeloaders and such. I find it interesting.

It is completely unconstitutional at the federal level. It could be done at the state or local level if the people so choose.

I would like to see republicans make the case. I don't see that happening though. Too busy doing ... to be honest, haven't heard of them doing much of anything lately. Just yelling at the FBI and trying to score points with the POTUS.

 

[John Shaw]

It's simple logic. No abortion = more children. More poor children. No welfare = more poor, hungry children and more poverty. More poverty --> more crime.

It doesn't matter who's in charge. In your hypothetical, that's what happens. No abortion. No welfare. More crime and more poverty.

I would challenge part of that. When we had Welfare Reform, the results were mostly positive. Some people were forced to go to work for the first time in their lives. More families stayed together. People claimed they felt liberated for the first time in their lives. It was a positive thing.

When you reward people to stay home and do nothing, don't be surprised when they do exactly that.

He said welfare is unconstitutional. He isn't talking about reform.

Perhaps, but your claim is that without welfare, the world would end as we know it: people starving, getting involved in more crime, murders in the street.......

None of that happened when Welfare Reform took place.

I didn't say it would be a catastrophe, but I think it's hard to argue against the idea that both crime and poverty would increase in that scenario.

I haven't heard the "welfare is unconstitutional" argument made before. Usually people are more concerned with what they perceive to be unfair; freeloaders and such. I find it interesting.

When Welfare Reform took place in the 90s, it didn't do any of those things you are predicting. In fact, after it was passed, violent and gun crime decreased significantly. Which horse will run faster, the one you feed carrots to before you take the horse out, or the one with a carrot dangling in front of them?

Our greatest success of this country is that people are rewarded for their efforts. When you reward people who don't give a damn about succeeding, less people will try.

But you can't refute the fact that banning abortion would present an additional burden to society. You are anticipating that poor people who have undesired children would step up to the plate. And some would. But I'm not generous enough with my expectations of others to assume that such a change in earning power would be normal. In fact, I expect earnings to DECREASE, because many of these women are the sole parent and would need more time away from work to care for the new child.

 

[candycorn]

Few things will energize the Democrat's base more than this. Bring it on.

Fewer things will cause more discord in the GOP than this. Forcing suburban parents whose 15 y/o daughter to give birth....yeah. Have at it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would challenge part of that. When we had Welfare Reform, the results were mostly positive. Some people were forced to go to work for the first time in their lives. More families stayed together. People claimed they felt liberated for the first time in their lives. It was a positive thing.

When you reward people to stay home and do nothing, don't be surprised when they do exactly that.

He said welfare is unconstitutional. He isn't talking about reform.

Perhaps, but your claim is that without welfare, the world would end as we know it: people starving, getting involved in more crime, murders in the street.......

None of that happened when Welfare Reform took place.

I didn't say it would be a catastrophe, but I think it's hard to argue against the idea that both crime and poverty would increase in that scenario.

I haven't heard the "welfare is unconstitutional" argument made before. Usually people are more concerned with what they perceive to be unfair; freeloaders and such. I find it interesting.

When Welfare Reform took place in the 90s, it didn't do any of those things you are predicting. In fact, after it was passed, violent and gun crime decreased significantly. Which horse will run faster, the one you feed carrots to before you take the horse out, or the one with a carrot dangling in front of them?

Our greatest success of this country is that people are rewarded for their efforts. When you reward people who don't give a damn about succeeding, less people will try.

But you can't refute the fact that banning abortion would present an additional burden to society. You are anticipating that poor people who have undesired children would step up to the plate. And some would. But I'm not generous enough with my expectations of others to assume that such a change in earning power would be normal. In fact, I expect earnings to DECREASE, because many of these women are the sole parent and would need more time away from work to care for the new child.

I agree with what you are saying, but be honest with yourself here: Let's say abortion was illegal across the entire country. Do you think that women would be just as careless then as they are today? I don't think so. I think more women (and men) would take more precautions when having sex if they knew there was no way out of having a baby they really didn't want.

 

[John Shaw]

He said welfare is unconstitutional. He isn't talking about reform.

Perhaps, but your claim is that without welfare, the world would end as we know it: people starving, getting involved in more crime, murders in the street.......

None of that happened when Welfare Reform took place.

I didn't say it would be a catastrophe, but I think it's hard to argue against the idea that both crime and poverty would increase in that scenario.

I haven't heard the "welfare is unconstitutional" argument made before. Usually people are more concerned with what they perceive to be unfair; freeloaders and such. I find it interesting.

When Welfare Reform took place in the 90s, it didn't do any of those things you are predicting. In fact, after it was passed, violent and gun crime decreased significantly. Which horse will run faster, the one you feed carrots to before you take the horse out, or the one with a carrot dangling in front of them?

Our greatest success of this country is that people are rewarded for their efforts. When you reward people who don't give a damn about succeeding, less people will try.

But you can't refute the fact that banning abortion would present an additional burden to society. You are anticipating that poor people who have undesired children would step up to the plate. And some would. But I'm not generous enough with my expectations of others to assume that such a change in earning power would be normal. In fact, I expect earnings to DECREASE, because many of these women are the sole parent and would need more time away from work to care for the new child.

I agree with what you are saying, but be honest with yourself here: Let's say abortion was illegal across the entire country. Do you think that women would be just as careless then as they are today? I don't think so. I think more women (and men) would take more precautions when having sex if they knew there was no way out of having a baby they really didn't want.

Again, you are counting upon the intelligence and caution of others when making this assumption. To some extent, I agree ... however ... I don't think it's wise to rely upon something so unreliable as the intelligence and caution of others.

Not to mention that birth control isn't 100%. Unless you just expect women who don't want children to be celibate. Which isn't remotely realistic.

 

[danielpalos]

So you’re not for saving babies?

Democrats don't have babies. They have little clusters of cells that are of no value to anyone. So you're wrong. I think saving babies is a good thing but the results of intercourse between members of the same sub-human species, Democrats, should be eliminated before they, too, get a chance to breed.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about morals. Tax cuts for the rich and cuts to social services for the poor, is all they know.

 

[P@triot]

I would like to see republicans make the case.

Republicans never will for a multitude of reasons.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Perhaps, but your claim is that without welfare, the world would end as we know it: people starving, getting involved in more crime, murders in the street.......

None of that happened when Welfare Reform took place.

I didn't say it would be a catastrophe, but I think it's hard to argue against the idea that both crime and poverty would increase in that scenario.

I haven't heard the "welfare is unconstitutional" argument made before. Usually people are more concerned with what they perceive to be unfair; freeloaders and such. I find it interesting.

When Welfare Reform took place in the 90s, it didn't do any of those things you are predicting. In fact, after it was passed, violent and gun crime decreased significantly. Which horse will run faster, the one you feed carrots to before you take the horse out, or the one with a carrot dangling in front of them?

Our greatest success of this country is that people are rewarded for their efforts. When you reward people who don't give a damn about succeeding, less people will try.

But you can't refute the fact that banning abortion would present an additional burden to society. You are anticipating that poor people who have undesired children would step up to the plate. And some would. But I'm not generous enough with my expectations of others to assume that such a change in earning power would be normal. In fact, I expect earnings to DECREASE, because many of these women are the sole parent and would need more time away from work to care for the new child.

I agree with what you are saying, but be honest with yourself here: Let's say abortion was illegal across the entire country. Do you think that women would be just as careless then as they are today? I don't think so. I think more women (and men) would take more precautions when having sex if they knew there was no way out of having a baby they really didn't want.

Again, you are counting upon the intelligence and caution of others when making this assumption. To some extent, I agree ... however ... I don't think it's wise to rely upon something so unreliable as the intelligence and caution of others.

Not to mention that birth control isn't 100%. Unless you just expect women who don't want children to be celibate. Which isn't remotely realistic.

If abortion were illegal, I don't expect everybody to be more responsible. Kids will be kids, irresponsible adults will be irresponsible adults. But I think it would greatly reduce the amount of people who have unexpected children. I think it would force some irresponsible people to be more responsible.

 

[P@triot]

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about morals. Tax cuts for the rich and cuts to social services for the poor, is all they know.

Thank you, Daniel, for illustrating just how insightful Frédéric Bastiat really was...

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frédéric Bastiat

It is pitiful (not to mention transparent) that you try to cover your desire to plunder under some faux “moral” code. There is nothing “moral” about stealing.